tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7184107630543699239..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Evolution is a Fact and Dawkins Proves it!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9177822379012142862009-10-06T02:09:10.197-04:002009-10-06T02:09:10.197-04:00Aiight,
I want you all to just "come into t...Aiight,<br /><br />I want you all to just "come into the light" I got a little something that may interest you...I'll be glad to field your comments and discuss it there as I'm outta this thread...<br /><br />http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2009/10/rottweiler-who-lost-his-teeth-his-mind.html<br /><br />Take a stab if you will, you're welcome...District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65070938500360758322009-10-05T11:01:05.128-04:002009-10-05T11:01:05.128-04:00I had to chime in even though this is really late....I had to chime in even though this is really late. Since I am a scientist this is the first time that I felt I had something to contribute.<br /><br /><br />Throughout this whole debate with District Supt. Harvey Burnett I see him engaging in projection on a massive scale. He badly needs the science of evolution to be like religion because all he can do is use conversion tactics. <br /><br /><br />1. Obsession with people, not data. He refers to evolutions discoverers as founders. Religions and religious sects get founded. Aspects of reality like evolution get DISCOVERED.<br /><br /><br />2. Flawless leader. He has to constantly point out flaws that the discoverers of evolution had. Religion is very dependent on charismatic leaders that tend have to be correct about everything because this reflects on the fact that they are supposedly close to god. If a religious leader is found to have flaws by members of another religion/sect, they try to use this to show that they really don’t have the “true faith” in conversion attempts. In reality it does not matter what flaws a scientific discoverer has, it only matters if the data demonstrating his discovery is sound. Evolution would still have been discovered if Darwin never existed. The fact that Lamark existed is evidence of this.<br /><br /><br />3. Flawless dogma. Similar to the above, religion must be flawless (as opposed to the followers or leaders). If it can be shown that a religion or religious belief has a logical problem, or contradicts reality (or the prosthelytizers holy book) in some obvious way, a conversion attempt will focus on this. All scientific explanations are imperfect. All scientific explanations start out as rough hypotheses with flaws, or even completely wrong. As experiments are carried out mistakes are corrected and the explanations are improved to better reflect reality. It is COMPLETELY NORMAL to find that scientific explanations need to change to take into account new data. Religion on the other hand is not supposed to change to reflect a better understanding of reality (at least the most common understanding of religion).Joshua Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17010444242055881010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53158162946259163262009-10-05T10:59:33.556-04:002009-10-05T10:59:33.556-04:00I had a part one to my first comment that I have t...I had a part one to my first comment that I have tried to post twice now, and another separate comment. They do not seem to be showing up. I am going to try one more time below. Am I getting caught in a filter of some kind?Joshua Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17010444242055881010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42533913776500643822009-10-04T23:36:06.871-04:002009-10-04T23:36:06.871-04:00Harvey wrote: If things aren's "set in st...Harvey wrote: <b>If things aren's "set in stone" then they can only be theoretical and not proclaimed as FACT...is that right?</b><br /><br />Harvey, <br /><br />I don't think you have complete understanding of how scientific theories work. Theories are formed to explain a series of facts. They are not claims about each fact that supports the theory. <br /><br />Let's take a theory that a particular group of people traveled by car from the west coast to the east coast over the period of a specific week. Currently, we can observe these individuals in New York City. <br /><br />Since theories are designed to explain a number of facts, we don't start out by asserting that these individuals traveled from the east to west coast and try to dig up facts that support the idea. Instead, the theory would come after the discovery many different traces left by these individuals as they traveled across the country. This might include credit card payments, ATM withdraws, security camera footage, car rentals, gas purchases, rental of hotel rooms, cell phone calls, etc. <br /><br />We might assume the first trace of these individuals in a particular city on the west coast was their point of origin. However, since the claim is that people started on the west coast and travel east, knowing this exact location is not necessary. As these individuals travel east, they may not leave traces on each and every step of their journey. However, we can make educated guesses as to the actual path they took between each of these locations. Eventually the trail leads us to NYC. <br /><br />Should we eventually discover a slightly different starting point on the west coast or additional traces of these individuals which indicate the exact path between points we estimated earlier was incorrect, this does not invalidate the overall theory. Nor would a single false positive trace left by an individual during their journey. Again the theory does not make claims made about each and every fact. <br /><br />As such, our estimation of exactly where these people started and the exact path they took is not set in stone. But the theory of these individuals traveling from the west coast to the east coast via car has overwhelming evidence that supports it as a true. <br /><br />We can look at the theory of evolution in the same way. <br /><br />That Ardi turned out to be less like either modern human beings or modern apes that we originally thought does not invalidate the theory that life evolved from simpler forms via random mutation and natural selection. <br /><br />In my earlier analogy, you can think of our knowledge before Ardi's discovery as guessing that these individuals passed though Indianapolis Indiana on their way from St. Louis Missouri to Columbus Ohio. After Ardi's discovery, we found out that, in reality, they actually passed though Louisville Kentucky instead. <br /><br />Again, this discovery does not invalidate the theory. Nor must the facts that support it need to be set in stone for the theory to be true.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11366482433805447702009-10-04T23:31:10.431-04:002009-10-04T23:31:10.431-04:00DSHB: I dare you to read the book. Or just read ...DSHB: I dare you to read the book. Or just read Pp. 364 and 365.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10886721159929597362009-10-03T09:50:42.759-04:002009-10-03T09:50:42.759-04:00Harv you said.... "Now was Darwin wrong when ...Harv you said.... "Now was Darwin wrong when he held what he said about racism and the inferiority of women?"<br /><br />Hi i havent studied enough to know exactly what Darwin did or didnt say about these things Harvey,but i personally dont see coloured skin people or women as inferior.<br /><br />Faithful folks i was born to didnt really want us to learn about these things remember,you`ll need to discuss it with others here who from watching seems to have been trying real hard to.<br /><br />But like everything its not going to be learning if its not done with honesty.We get no where.<br /><br />Whats worse is it catches up with us anyway sooner or later.As more and more new imformation comes to the surface.Keep betting on a lame duck and you are bound to win the wooden spoon.<br /><br />But hey people were wrong about some things with genetics,but you would still use genetic science to help catch a crim if your sweet daughter got raped right?.You dont say hey this genetics thingy,Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a real boo boo! and only idiots would try to catch crims with use of genetics.Silly idiots they still follow it cause Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is their god.<br /><br />You would likely use genetics this way because its proven to work right?,and yet maybe years back some faithful folks thought hell bugger that! those people must be using blinking voodoo..Chicken blood and rattling knuckle bones!<br /><br />you said.."Secondly, since Dawkins claims evolution to be a FACT, as Darwin did, what would make his FACTS wrong? Would that be new science or political correctness?"<br /><br />Speaking for myself it would likely be science.And more than one scientists agreement.<br /><br />To be honest (not being a expert) im not totally convinced of total evolution yet either,should i be?hell scientists (the experts) still discuss many aspects of it.<br /><br />But im more convinced of evolution than i am of inteligent design of some supernatural god force,why? because even little ol i see a lot more evidence of evolution stuff happening around me.<br /><br />You said...."Get off it Gandy...you guys just mad because I and MANY don't buy into your beliefs of science that keeps changing and updating itself because of political correctness."<br /><br />Who me?? ....yeah im mad as a meat axe hell i grew up with crazy buggers ....i needed to see the funny side to survive.<br /><br />But no not angry mad Harv.You suggesting its our god only stands to good reason if we hold on to it while having the little evidence like you have for your gods.Why should it make me mad when i know youth will see we really hold onto scientific evidence?.<br /><br />Sure i get a little mad sometimes because these faith beliefs have effected my family life so much.<br /><br />But im sure much of the youth of today understand that part too.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35550197835160797042009-10-03T09:04:17.893-04:002009-10-03T09:04:17.893-04:00Harv,
I once again recommend the Olivia Judson pi...Harv,<br /><br />I once again recommend the Olivia Judson piece.<br /><br />Science is not theology. <br /><br />They are two different systems of knowing.<br /><br />Do you understand that?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46687401822670012172009-10-03T08:52:59.777-04:002009-10-03T08:52:59.777-04:00Harvey: Then HOW could common descent be a FACT as...Harvey: <i>Then HOW could common descent be a FACT as evolution claims? I'm not talking about MICROevolution of change and adaptations within a species...I'm talking about MACROevolution or one species becoming another?<br /><br />If things aren's "set in stone" then they can only be theoretical and not proclaimed as FACT...is that right?</i><br /><br />Of course you would know the answers to your questions if you would take the time to read of few of the resources that I and others have recommended to you.<br /><br />First, evolution is a scientific theory (which means it is well supported by multiple lines of evidence). Whatever errors Darwin may have had does not change the status of evolution. Chuck pointed this out to you but you refuse to listen.<br /><br />Second, evolution as a theory is distinct from the specific pathways that evolution may have taken along the way. So, Ardi could be on the line that led to modern humans or may have gone extinct.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84723489311284981562009-10-03T03:29:03.251-04:002009-10-03T03:29:03.251-04:00District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
LIE, it was...<b>District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...</b><br /><br /><i>LIE, it was good ole Darwinian evolution that had control of the law and any preferential treatment of men over women was promoted by IT, as they did with legislation on blacks. Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle.</i><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Can you give examples of how “Darwinian evolution” controlled the laws giving preferential treatment of men over women?</b><br /><br />What laws were enacted? What years are we taking about? What states? Where did this happen? <br /><br /><b>Evolution was used to support the concept that blacks were property like cattle.</b><br /><br />Can you give an example? Who used evolution to support blacks were property like cattle? How did they use evolution, when, where?<br /><br />Harvey at least you could do is to add some reference just saying it doesn’t make it so. <br />I need historical examples dates, times, places, and people. The statement you offer, offers nothing.<br /><br />ThanksJonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715319397553428894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90199981549742787712009-10-03T00:03:57.633-04:002009-10-03T00:03:57.633-04:00Get off it Gandy...you guys just mad because I and...Get off it Gandy...you guys just mad because I and MANY don't buy into your beliefs of science that keeps changing and updating itself because of political correctness...<br /><br />Now was Darwin wrong when he held what he said about racism and the inferiority of women? <br /><br />If he was wrong based on the science, what discoveries of science made him wrong and why was his scientific method flawed? Was it simply because he didn't know enough? That's ok if so, I can understand that, but he made scientific postulations and everyone bought into his dogma...All of you seem to be reluctant to even admit that he was wrong in his SCIENCE and method, if in no other way on that point...I honestly wonder why?<br /><br />Secondly, since Dawkins claims evolution to be a FACT, as Darwin did, what would make his FACTS wrong? Would that be new science or political correctness?<br /><br />I'm doin a post and leveling much more information than I am here, I'm sure you'll love it!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13837249918214017972009-10-02T18:41:53.461-04:002009-10-02T18:41:53.461-04:00Scott,
I'm sorry my friend...it was to Jonath...Scott,<br /><br />I'm sorry my friend...it was to Jonathan...my apologies.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50343323108987419132009-10-02T18:22:13.309-04:002009-10-02T18:22:13.309-04:00Joshua said...."I would suggest not even tryi...Joshua said...."I would suggest not even trying to have a discussion with this guy."<br /><br />Maybe it is rather pointless with regards to Harv and his type of band of elderly merry men all stone cold drunk on old religious wine.That in reality has never been anything more than stagnant water with hallucinative properties.<br /><br />With that point,yes i think maybe ill have to agree.<br /><br />But i dont think all the youth in the U.S.A have yet become old religious alcoholic street kids,without any chance of finding another home.<br /><br />And im pretty sure some of Harveys youthful first nation kindred will find it interesting to see the Geronimo of today.Need not be so worried about those who might speak with forked toung, but need to now worry more about those who have claimed religious rights to endless retention of muddled minds.<br /><br />Who have long thrown away past tradition of careful sporadic participation indulgence of the odd peyote cactus here and there.For full blown daily consumption of religious LSD. <br /><br />Harv may feel his obvious deluded tunnel vision thoughts of all people likely being actually stuck in modes of faith,(goes unnoticed) to these wiser and more educated kids of today.<br /><br />But is that such a bad thing if we want to see future change?.<br /><br />Personally i think our Harv is kindly being very beneficial to us in furthering non belief.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13792465244296262612009-10-02T14:40:18.993-04:002009-10-02T14:40:18.993-04:00Harv you said,
"No, what it is that you long...Harv you said,<br /><br />"No, what it is that you long for the day when you'll get a SUCKER to agree with your garbage...that's all...I AIN'T the one..."<br /><br />Yet you admit to not investigating any of the sources people suggest.<br /><br />You might want to follow the advice of a fellow creationist who said, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination." (William Paley)Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20388956341762681092009-10-02T14:36:59.476-04:002009-10-02T14:36:59.476-04:00Harvey wrote: Scott,
You like a youngester presen...Harvey wrote: <b>Scott,<br /><br />You like a youngester present dates etc becaus eyou STUPID...you fail to understand what actually happend when it comes to liberation of blacks in particular..</b><br /><br />Harvey, is this directed at me? I'm asking because this response seems to be irrelevant to the comments and questions I've asked.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91181360481711333602009-10-02T13:27:20.280-04:002009-10-02T13:27:20.280-04:00Joshua,
You said:"I long for the day that I ...Joshua,<br /><br />You said:<i>"I long for the day that I encounter a creationist who can properly understand and describe the data that supports a particular scientific argument, and provide a testable, observation based counter explanation"</i><br /><br />No, what it is that you long for the day when you'll get a SUCKER to agree with your garbage...that's all...I AIN'T the one...District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51864214334189370982009-10-02T13:00:42.807-04:002009-10-02T13:00:42.807-04:00Even more on District Supt. Harvey Burnett
This ...Even more on District Supt. Harvey Burnett <br /><br />This is followed by claims that we are “running from Darwin” because in his mind it would be silly if a religious person would run from the words of the religions founder. He can’t conceive of any authority system other than a religious one. He just can’t accept that fact that Darwin does not matter that much anymore because we have a huge amount of data that we have been collecting since Darwin’s time. If you erased all of Charles Darwins’ contributions to science from history we would still have the theory of evolution because the remaining data is good enough. The genetic code is good enough evidence alone.<br /><br /><br />Then follows another paragraph directly saying evolution is religious and Darwin is like a god. I think I have said enough about this<br /><br />Then a big screed about race and history that is supposed to be a response to a comment showing that Darwin and race problems in the US are not connected, except that his screed does not even show anything about how Darwin could have had an impact on race in the US. Just saying it does not make it so. This is even more interesting because earlier on he seems to enjoy thinking that he made someone “blow a gasket” but here it seems emotion has made him completely unhinged. <br /><br />I would suggest not even trying to have a discussion with this guy. He has no views about any of this that in any way reflect reality and shows no sign of being open to correction. I find this is common among those who insist that evolution is like a religion and can’t respond to arguments that show that to be incorrect. It would be easy if it were just dishonesty. Guys like this do not even have the basic respect respect of trying to understand your argument and responding to it. They just want to rant at you. They will ignore the substance of your responses and keep repeating what you have already responded to. They will not even try because the have religious truth they have bought into, not an argument they were convinced of.Joshua Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17010444242055881010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4760661762663135712009-10-02T11:14:18.199-04:002009-10-02T11:14:18.199-04:00Continued (I hate blogger)
4. “I can explain it ...Continued (I hate blogger)<br /><br /><br />4. “I can explain it and you can’t therefore I’m right”. The inability of science to give an answer to a question that a religion (supposedly) has an answer for is considered a weakness (example: origin of the universe). In reality it is normal for there to be unanswered scientific questions. These represent opportunities for discovery. In addition the religious answer for the phenomena tends to be either a pure assertion or badly supported. <br /><br /><br />5. The first way was the best way. You see lots of references and reverence to the founders of a religion when one is exposed to religious belief. There is a tendency to think that they old way was the best and only way and one should strive to be like the founders. This is why you see constant references to Darwin. They ignore 99%+ of what has occurred in evolutionary theory since Darwin except to point out recent discoveries that lead to a minor revision to a small detail of HOW evolution has occurred, not support that evolution ever even happened.<br /><br /><br />In reality science is nothing like a religion. We may have certain people who are respected more than others but this is because of the discoveries that they made, not because they keep pushing a dusty dogma. What a scientist is respected for is change, not stasis. Our “holy books” are subject to constant revision. We point out errors and move forward. We are not content with a supernatural answer for life’s mysteries; we tackle the unknowns with glee! A scientist who does not come up with something new is not a scientist for long.<br /><br /><br />The result of this mind set is that creationists never talk about the data that supports evolutionary theory; instead they engage in religious conversion tactics. They have an abysmal grasp of what science is, evolutionary theory says, what the data that supports it means, and even what the motivations of scientists are. District Supt. Harvey Burnett fits this profile exactly. I have seen him say nothing accurate when it comes to science in general, or the theory of evolution specifically. Instead he just engages in the useless conversion tactics I outlined above. I long for the day that I encounter a creationist who can properly understand and describe the data that supports a particular scientific argument, and provide a testable, observation based counter explanation.Joshua Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17010444242055881010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38860359557894003802009-10-02T11:08:42.879-04:002009-10-02T11:08:42.879-04:00Harv,
You said, "You like a youngester prese...Harv,<br /><br />You said, "You like a youngester present dates etc becaus eyou STUPID..."<br /><br />This made me giggle.<br /><br />Did Frankenstein write that sentence?<br /><br />Just saying . . . pot meet kettle.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69201269267586958572009-10-02T11:06:52.797-04:002009-10-02T11:06:52.797-04:00Harv,
Thanks for your response but, I think you d...Harv,<br /><br />Thanks for your response but, I think you don't understand what I am suggesting. Your emphasis on the limitations of Darwin in relation to the theory of evolutionary biology are not germane to the practice of the theory or its continued development. Your passion is kind of silly. Just because you think it is important to show where Darwin was wrong as some sort of proof that evolution is false does not mean evolution is false. Your operating under an availability bias. Your religion can garner power by claiming original perfection with its founder but, science doesn't operate under the same pretense. I suggest you read the Olivia Judson piece I posted. Thanks.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16818152407103975522009-10-02T10:56:14.063-04:002009-10-02T10:56:14.063-04:00Anthony,
You said:"The theories surrounding ...Anthony,<br /><br />You said:<i>"The theories surrounding human evolution are not set in stone and are often updated or modified based upon the evidence."</i><br /><br />Then HOW could common descent be a FACT as evolution claims? I'm not talking about MICROevolution of change and adaptations within a species...I'm talking about MACROevolution or one species becoming another?<br /><br />If things aren's "set in stone" then they can only be theoretical and not proclaimed as FACT...is that right?District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33264363951984668342009-10-02T09:17:51.303-04:002009-10-02T09:17:51.303-04:00So that part doesn't matter...what matters is ...<i>So that part doesn't matter...what matters is that Pasteur debunked certain elements of evolutionary theory in the process of his discovery.</i>"<br /><br />Actually, Harvey, spontaneous generation would falsify evolutionary theory.<br /><br />You seem very hung up about Darwin. But whatever neuroses you have about him it doesn't alter the truth of his discoveries. Unlike Darwin, Isaac Newton was not a nice man who you would be right to dislike but the planets still orbit the sun in close compliance with his theory of gravity.<br /><br />But lets get real, Harvey. You object to the man Darwin not because you have any knowledge of the life of the man but because you don't like his basic theory that all life is interconnected. That's as stoopid as disliking Michael Faraday because your granddad died in the electric chair.Samphirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327984071854007032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10843953480148843992009-10-01T23:41:00.181-04:002009-10-01T23:41:00.181-04:00Russ,
You blew a gasket didn't you?...I LOVE ...Russ,<br /><br />You blew a gasket didn't you?...I LOVE IT!<br /><br />You guys are tooo funny...Look, NONE of my statement have been out of context by the authors...russ you quote Carroll on a point that has nothing to do with what my point was...we were talking TRANSITIONALS which Carroll says are MISSING...you say we're all transtionals, but the palentologists say your're CRAZY and don't know jack...<br /><br />then to see you guys run from Darwin is absolutely HILLARIOUS! You don't want to be on a sinking ship...that's ok...it's human nature, but the sad thing is you don't have the common sense to get off the boat...that's what called flesh, pride and arrogance...<br /><br />Just in case you'll notice Christians avoid your evangelism in this area becaus eyou become totally unreasonable as many of you have been when your god is under fire...but that's ok too...I really don't care and this is good practice for me even IF you turn coat on the founders of your belief system...yes Darwin started it with help of course but his word was gold for as long as he could talk and the modern efforts have done little to exorcise itself of his demons...<br /><br />Scott,<br /><br />You like a youngester present dates etc becaus eyou STUPID...you fail to understand what actually happend when it comes to liberation of blacks in particular...In my case I know this because I'm not only Black but I'm Native American also... you are oblivious to the fact that the early form of "civil rights" or black freedoms were serverely limited...there were clauses such as the "grandfather clause" that prohibited blacks from voting unless ther grandafther was a free man...well in 1800 not too many people had living grandfathers yet alone records that any of them were free, because none of them were at least legally. yet alone were able to vote...<br /><br />America has always had it's remorse over certain things and not everyone had evil hearts but the practice and law and it's application were controlled by the powers that be that believe in SEGREGATION and racial principles of Darwin...<br /><br />Take a course on Black and Native American history and you'll get through those literalist interpretations of "ther was nothing wrong" garbage that you believe...I can tell you're a young white guy with little experience in ethnic issues...that's ok, but please don't be offensive any longer in this. People went to their graves because SOMETHING was wrong. In addition, I have a a long family history to recite in these regards...<br /><br />Simply admit Darwin was wrong and you move on...refer to what I wrote Churck O, answer those questions, that'll be sufficient for me...Thanks.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69940595990398548372009-10-01T23:16:23.682-04:002009-10-01T23:16:23.682-04:00Russ,
you said:"You googles for quotes to mi...Russ,<br /><br />you said:<i>"You googles for quotes to mine, from a long-dead historical figure, Charles Darwin"</i><br /><br />No my friend you don't know what I know...I already knew these things check the date of my blog on the subject...it was last year...you don't know what additionally I know also...A fool telleth all that he knows...so please keep lookin' you MIGHT learn something...<br /><br />You also said:<i>"You do not understand that evolution theory does not deal with origin of life. Spontaneous generation never was a concept in evolutionary theory."</i><br /><br />You don't understand that when there is no spontaneous generation there IS no evolutionary theory as Darwin set forth and as you continue to evangelize in his name.<br /><br />1+1 still equals 2...in most cases anyway...<br /><br />So that part doesn't matter...what matters is that Pasteur debunked certain elements of evolutionary theory in the process of his discovery.<br /><br />Was this simply a growth of evolution and was it WRONG prior to his discovery? Yes or No???District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89176599675764737852009-10-01T23:06:37.070-04:002009-10-01T23:06:37.070-04:00Chuck O,
You said:"Your disagreements with e...Chuck O,<br /><br />You said:<i>"Your disagreements with evolutioniary biology have nothing to do with its current practice or useful technologies that have been built on it but rather in the imperfections of its supposed founder."</i><br /><br />So the questions you have to answer for me are this:<br /><br />WERE the founders of evolutionary theory wrong about their assessments?<br /><br />If they were on what basis? Is it on the science or the political basis? You may say on the science, but Dawinian evolution has never been seperated from it's founder Charles Darwin...So either he was right or wrong and if you say he was wrong in certain things where is the credibility that we can accept him and other champions of this dastardly scheme up until now? <br /><br />You may say this is the genetic fallacy at work, but these are the founders and chief proponents of this garbage...then on what basis is the scientific evidence to overturn their postulations? <br /><br />Criticize all you want but those are the questions that should be answered by proponents of evolution.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43275717679658208332009-10-01T22:58:06.692-04:002009-10-01T22:58:06.692-04:00Harvey writes speaking of Ardi: Well, well, well, ...Harvey writes speaking of Ardi: <i>Well, well, well, amazing things happen every day. Why can't people belive that things (these creatures0 were just made that way from their beginning? It would be so much simpler, especially since their NO LINKING EVIDENCE.</i><br /><br />Here we go again, you continue to show your ignorance of the theory of evolution. Evidence, Harvey, can and often does require us to reexamine and sometimes update our views of how things happened. The theories surrounding human evolution are not set in stone and are often updated or modified based upon the evidence. Ardi could in fact be in the line of human evolution, or, it just could be a branch that went extinct. The many mosaic and transitional features of fossils such as Ardi continue to support evolution.<br /><br />It was interesting, on Jerry Coyne's <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/welcome-to-ardi-a-new-member-of-our-family/" rel="nofollow">blog</a> Ardi was being discussed and the question was brought up, how will the creationists respond to the evidence. And you know what Harv? You are true to form.<br /><br />By the way, Russ's response to you regarding women and racism was excellent and spot on. I was going to write my own response but found his analysis so well done that I didn't feel the need. Although I did want to make one suggestion regarding the Darwin and racism issue, and that is, I challenge you to contact Neil deGrasse Tyson and ask him about his thoughts on it. Tyson is a well respected scientist and an evolutionist.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.com